The New Academic Environment and Faculty Misconduct
- PMID: 26488567
- DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000956
The New Academic Environment and Faculty Misconduct
Abstract
Faculty members are expected to abide by codes of conduct that are delineated in institutional policies and to behave ethically when engaging in scientific pursuits. As federal funds for research decrease, faculty members face increasing pressure to sustain their research activities, and many have developed new collaborations and pursued new entrepreneurial opportunities. As research collaborations increase, however, there may be competition to get credit as the first person to develop ideas, make new discoveries, and/or publish new findings. This increasingly competitive academic environment may contribute to intentional or unintentional faculty misconduct. The authors, who work in the Dean's Office at a large U.S. medical school (University of California, San Francisco), investigate one to two cases of alleged misconduct each month. These investigations, which are stressful and unpleasant, may culminate in serious disciplinary action for the faculty member. Further, these allegations sometimes result in lengthy and acrimonious civil litigation. This Perspective provides three examples of academic misconduct: violations of institutional conflict-of-interest policies, disputes about intellectual property, and authorship conflicts.The authors also describe prevention and mitigation strategies that their medical school employs, which may be helpful to other institutions. Prevention strategies include training campus leaders, using attestations to reduce violations of institutional policies, encouraging open discussion and written agreements about individuals' roles and responsibilities, and defining expectations regarding authorship and intellectual property at the outset. Mitigation strategies include using mediation by third parties who do not have a vested academic, personal, or financial interest in the outcome.
Similar articles
-
Conflict-of-interest policies for investigators in clinical trials.N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 30;343(22):1616-20. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200011303432206. N Engl J Med. 2000. PMID: 11096170
-
Evaluating U.S. medical schools' efforts to educate faculty researchers on research integrity and research misconduct policies and procedures.Account Res. 2014;21(1):9-25. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822264. Account Res. 2014. PMID: 24073604
-
Beyond financial conflicts of interest: Institutional oversight of faculty consulting agreements at schools of medicine and public health.PLoS One. 2018 Oct 29;13(10):e0203179. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203179. eCollection 2018. PLoS One. 2018. PMID: 30372431 Free PMC article.
-
Authorship Policies at U.S. Doctoral Universities: A Review and Recommendations for Future Policies.Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Dec;26(6):3393-3413. doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00273-7. Epub 2020 Nov 19. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020. PMID: 33210194 Free PMC article.
-
Research ethics III: Publication practices and authorship, conflicts of interest, and research misconduct.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011 Feb;54(1):S346-62. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0263). Epub 2010 Nov 16. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011. PMID: 21081675 Review.
Cited by
-
Main outcomes of an RCT to pilot test reporting and feedback to foster research integrity climates in the VA.AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2017 Jul-Sep;8(3):211-219. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2017.1363318. Epub 2017 Aug 7. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2017. PMID: 28949895 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials